Tuesday, October 20, 2009

She found him handsome?

You may be aware of the story of Katie Piper. An English girl blessed with good looks, she worked as a TV presenter and model. Then she met a man on the internet, Daniel Lynch, and embarked on a relationship with him.

Two weeks into the affair, he attacked her, raping and beating her. She didn't report him, and even agreed later to go to an internet cafe to read an email he had sent her.

Lynch, though, had arranged for a friend to throw acid on her face. She has since courageously gone through 30 operations to overcome her injuries, but is permanently disfigured.

Lawrence Auster has commented on the story, noting that liberalism leaves some young women naive and vulnerable:

What is there to say? Women have basic weaknesses built into their nature. Traditional society provides girls and women with an upbringing, a formation, that gives them the ability not to give into those weaknesses, for example, to fend off alluring but dangerous men. But in liberal society, they have no formation, no guidance, no upbringing, except for the liberal message to be open, to pursue your desires, and not to judge people.

One thing that struck me about the story is Katie Piper's description of her first encounters with Daniel Lynch:

when 33-year-old Daniel Lynch, a martial arts enthusiast, emailed Katie to say he’d been following her career, she admits she was instantly attracted.

‘He was wearing a martial arts suit in his picture and I’d been doing some promotional work for martial arts in the UK,’ she explains.

‘We seemed to have a lot in common and, to be honest, looking at his picture, I fancied him.’

A few days later Lynch turned up at a promotional event in Reading where Katie was working.

‘He seemed quite shy and nervous when we first met,’ she says. ‘We just had a nice, normal chat. He was 6ft 4in, quite macho-looking and handsome. I liked what I saw.’

Handsome? I don't think there is an iota of handsome in the face below.

He looks like the thug that he is. Prior to attacking Katie Piper he had convictions for violence and had been jailed for throwing boiling water on the face of another man.

But Katie Piper, a well-spoken English woman from a comfortable home, thought him macho looking and handsome and liked what she saw. She was sexually attracted to thuggish features in a man.

This relates, I think, to something I wrote about in a recent post. In most societies sex, romantic love and marriage are integrated so that each influences the culture of relationships between men and women.

Feminists have demanded, though, that women be "sexually liberated", meaning that they are to pursue relationships without regard to romantic love or marriage.

If a woman like Katie Piper had been influenced by a culture of marriage, it's highly unlikely she would have selected a man like Daniel Lynch. A culture of marriage makes for a well-considered and forward looking choice of mate. A woman will want a man who will be emotionally stable, loyal, and a good provider. She'll want a good role model for her children. She'll want someone with whom she can create intelligent and attractive children. She might, too, prefer a man of similar background, so that she can see herself in her own children and perpetuate her own lineage and culture.

If a woman like Katie Piper had been influenced instead by a culture of romantic love, she may have acted more impetuously, without thinking about the larger consequences of her choices. Even so, she still would probably not have chosen a man like Daniel Lynch. She might have preferred to look for a man who cut a dashing figure, who had wit and intelligence, who had achieved some prominent position in society, who was confident and popular with women and so on.

But what if a woman like Katie Piper is "sexually liberated" in the feminist sense? Then none of the above matters as much. It no longer matters if a man like Daniel Lynch is low IQ, emotionally unstable and unconfident in his dealings with women. What he does have is a raw display of high testosterone in his thuggish features and his propensity toward violence. This is what makes him sexually appealing and even "handsome" to a well-bred Englishwoman.

In the past, it was more likely to be the lowest socio-economic class which pursued relationships crudely through such basic sexual markers, without regard for a culture of romantic love or marriage. Perhaps England has now reached the point at which a middle-class culture is failing and giving way to lower-class mores.

So what's to be done? One thing to consider is that returning to a culture of romantic love isn't enough. You can believe in love and still be terribly naive about relationships. If all that matters is falling in love, then why would your culture provide you with any guidance? It wouldn't need to, as it's all based on feelings in the moment.

The balance between sex, romantic love and marriage matters. All three need to influence us in the "internal culture" of our minds when we relate to the opposite sex.

But the mainstream culture is increasingly losing the romantic love and marriage aspects. What can we as individuals do in response to this?

We can't completely overcome the influence of the mainstream culture. However, if a man maintains a loving and functional relationship with his wife and a close relationship with his daughters, then I think it's more likely that his daughters will continue to select for men in a more traditional way.

I think it's true too that young women who are less exposed to the influence of feminism in higher education (and who therefore don't make a feminist "sexual liberation" a kind of personal belief system) are also more likely to select for men more traditionally.

Whether talking openly to daughters about these issues helps or not, I'm not sure. But parents could at least try to point to the dangers of certain choices and behaviours. We could try to make our daughters aware that openness and non-judgementalism can have tragic consequences in real life and that they need to act prudently in their relationships with men.

91 comments:

Non-judgementalism is an important point but I think its a lot more than that. I don't think this kind of girl would have considered that maybe she'd be in danger from this guy. The naive confidence of young women these days doesn't seem to include considerations that things could go terribly wrong. The world is rosy, they can do anything etc.

I remember talking to my sister once and she said if she ever got in trouble with a guy she'd just knee them in the groin and that would be it. I had to talk her out of that idea on the grounds that it probably wouldn't work and it could make things much worse.

I'm sorry I'm a white Canadian woman and I hate to admit but I find Daniel Lynch undeniably sexy. You say the reason a woman would want a high testosterone macho looking guy is because of feminism? I am no feminist, I cook, clean, and much prefer a traditional role vs modern, go getter, dominating woman. Sometimes opposites attract, Katie does not look like a feminist either. True feminist style women I notice with more docile, beta type males in fact. Not saying it's a good thing, Daniel Lynch is scum and deserves a life sentence IMO. But I just don't see many feminist dominating women intrigued by macho dominating men, feminist women are the ones who tend to avoid those types. You got that one backwards

Anon, no-one has denied that women might find him sexy. If a man displays markers of high testosterone he might be found sexy. What I've argued is that he is not handsome. There's a difference. It's a bit like a man might find a woman with big breasts, long hair, long painted nails and high heels sexy, but not very beautiful. If all he wants is to satisfy a sexual urge her sexiness might be enough. But if he is looking for marriage, then the criteria of breast size and high heels is hopelessly inadequate. He might end up with a woman who will mistreat him and cause him much misery. He will have been foolish in choosing her in spite of her success in sexual signalling. Women too should avoid making choices based on limited criteria of sexual signalling.

Once upon a time a woman thought a man handsome if he had noble features, not if he looked like a thug with a squashed face.

I'm not really sure liberalism teaches us not to judge. There are some strains of liberalism that teach 'judge like hell and expect to be judged'. Personally, this is what I'll be teaching my children.

BTW, can I suggest a few more articles on themes other than 'liberalism corrupts women'. The current ratio appears to be about nine of those to every one on other matters.

Thanks to Mr. Richardson for expanding on this story and especially for the way he breaks down the hiararchy of a woman's evaluation of a man to the three levels of marriage, romantic love, and sex, showing how when sex is the only consideration, the only thing that matters is whether the woman "fancies" the man--has a reaction of sexual desire to him--or not. "I fancied him." The way Katie Piper recounts it now, with no criticism of the trivial and trivializing reaction that led her embark instantly into a sexual relationship with a psychotic thug who destroyed her life, suggests that she's learned nothing from her inconceivably horrible ordeal.

Also, I may be misunderstanding the British idiom "to fancy someone," but it seems to me that Mr. Richardson's title, "She found him handsome?" understates the degree to which Katie Pipe's initial reaction to Daniel Lynch was purely sexual. "Handsomeness" implies not just looks, but qualities of maturity, character, completeness in a man. It gets into the "second" level of the hierarchy, romantic love. But "I fancied him" suggests nothing but a sexual response, like saying, "I saw a delicious looking candy and had a yen to taste it." It reduces the object of one's interest to nothing but sexual turn-on appeal.

Many people forget the value of listening to their fear instinct. Fear has been drummed out of the corps of acceptable emotions. Gavin DeBecker wrote an interesting book on the subject. He is a security consultant and has specialised in teaching people how to remain safe.This murder is the result of social propaganda on the "value" of trust.

--If a woman like Katie Piper had been influenced by a culture of marriage, it's highly unlikely she would have selected a man like Daniel Lynch. A culture of marriage makes for a well-considered and forward looking choice of mate. A woman will want a man who will be emotionally stable, loyal, and a good provider---

This is pretty much impossible with female economic independence. Once she discounts the need of a provider, her base instincts chase bad boys and thugs.

The most disturbing aspect of this story is just how pretty Katie was. This was a woman who could literally have had any man she wanted. To choose this guy is more than just naivete, it's actively looking for danger. In other words, she got just what she was looking for.

Another disturbing element is how she and the journalist both act as if this is somehow a random freak accident, rather than a completely predictable result of horrible decisions. But that's par for the course these days.

The only problem is that you can't always judge a book by its cover. A well bred English gentlemen still may have smashed her and then what, there your goes your argument.

This fellow is undoubtedly an arsehole for what he has done and does not deserve to be the proud owner of a "pair."

Sexual liberation, feminism, liberalism, whatever, being the cause seems a bit of a stretch. Besides, its not hard to find articles relating to how physiological factors can affect who/what we find attractive. Being a "dirty tradesman" means that quite often I do not look urbane, charming, witty etc, however the roughness of my appearance is quite a turn on for my wife, who I treat with all the love and care she is due.

BTW, can I suggest a few more articles on themes other than 'liberalism corrupts women'. The current ratio appears to be about nine of those to every one on other matters.

I do often write on the broader topic of gender and relationships, but only two of the last twelve posts fit into this category, the others have been on topics such as nationalism, art, economism and political philosophy.

Michael, you've indicated previously your dislike of the issue, but these posts are of interest to others, being nearly always the most read and commented on items at the site.

it seems to me that Mr. Richardson's title, "She found him handsome?" understates the degree to which Katie Pipe's initial reaction to Daniel Lynch was purely sexual.

"Handsomeness" implies not just looks, but qualities of maturity, character, completeness in a man. It gets into the "second" level of the hierarchy, romantic love. But "I fancied him" suggests nothing but a sexual response

Agreed. She is effectively borrowing a term that derives from the level of romantic love and applying it to the sexual response alone.

This is pretty much impossible with female economic independence. Once she discounts the need of a provider, her base instincts chase bad boys and thugs.

Bhanu, I agree that this is the trend. But there are very attractive young women I work with who are still choosing men on more traditional grounds, even though they have their own independent income.

What I've noticed about these women is that they come from close knit families and have good relationships with their brothers and fathers. They also tend to teach in areas like sports or maths - avoiding the more heavily feminist influenced humanities fields.

The only problem is that you can't always judge a book by its cover. A well bred English gentlemen still may have smashed her and then what, there your goes your argument.

No, I disagree. If you go out with a low IQ, low impulse control, thuggish looking guy because you find the element of macho violence sexually alluring, the chances of things going wrong is considerably higher than average. There have been cases of women being attacked and/or murdered by such men appearing regularly in the Daily Mail.

If a woman selects a well bred English gentleman, then things might certainly still go wrong in the relationship. But the odds of a savage, senseless attack, such as having acid thrown at your face in the street because a two week relationship went sour, are surely remote.

While extreme, this is similar to cases I see every day of women choosing the wrong man. It's not just that liberalism has set women free to follow their sexual whims, it's that it has also created an environment in which it is wrong to use indicators such as class to determine one's behaviour. Theodore Dalrymple has written eloquently on the subject of the underclass in Britain, and he points out that things like tattoos are signs of criminality. However, talking to these women doesn't work, and I doubt (sadly) that it will work for our daughters.

It should also be said that men choose the wrong women, perhaps with less disastrous consequences, but those consequences can be far-reaching and significant. (A post on this topic would be very interesting, Mark.)

This has also brought to mind what I have seen of the modern Englishwoman. I don't claim to understand why, but feminism in the UK has created a particularly ugly modern woman. She is a selfish, crass, lascivious, immodest, domineering, mocking man-eater. Some of the Englishmen I have met are so brutalised by their experiences of them that they think Australian women are goddesses (which I suppose they may be in comparison). And this is where I disagree with you and Auster just a little, Mark. I don't think liberalism has left young women naive and vulnerable. Most women throughout history and continuing into today have been naive and vulnerable - that is the way of things. I think what liberalism has done is brainwash them into believing that they are powerful and indestructible and that danger is fun and to be courted. They think they're in control, but what they need to control most is totally out of control: their emotions, judgement, manners, desires, and so forth.

They also think they're rebelling. Having being fed that they're still fighting for equality, they continue to act with the immaturity and irrationality of teenage girls. A man like Lynch is "handsome" exactly because he's everything that would make any respectable parent shudder.

What is the solution? Whatever it is, it's complicated, but I tend to think the culture in which a girl grows up is crucial. It's all about the way she thinks, and what saved me from drastic mistakes in my youth was a healthy diet of classic novels by authors such as Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope (and their BBC adaptations for screen). A young girl's environment doesn't have to be that cerebral - though it might be good alternative to university! - but it does need to have decent and attractive role models. And this is where traditional women often need to pick up their game - it's all very well to be modest and chaste, but if you want your daughters to admire you as a role model a little bit of glamour goes a long way... and it doesn't hurt in the husband-wife arena either! There's not much use in being a good role model if no one wants to be like you....

"A well bred English gentlemen still may have smashed her and then what, there your goes your argument."

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! A thousand times NO!

Yes, you could get hit by a bus when the light is red. But that doesn't mean you should walk across the street when it is green!

What happened to this young lady is a direct result of that brand of thinking. She treated a low-life (dare I say it... BLACK) criminal "martial artist" the same way she would have treated a well bred English gentleman*. She treated a wolf as if it were an Irish setter.

* But, to be honest, I'm guessing this girl wouldn't have given the time of day to a well-bred English gentleman. She wanted the "gangster with the heart of gold", and she just got a gangster.

Contrary to Michael Sutcliffe, I welcome more articles on the topic of how liberalism impacts on women and their behavior. It's a double taboo that rarely if ever gets any airtime or space in print media; it's places like this (conservative blogs etc) where these ideas and observations can be investigated. Also, it's quite legitimate: liberalism has targeted women and minorities as its focus of liberation so it's quite proper to focus on them when questioning liberalism's effects on society.

Further to the above: an analysis that might be interesting to female traditionalists is the way that liberalism has greenlighted the most base and decadent male vices of yore. This is why the old "cad" is now the "player". This is also why thugs like the one in the article discussed here are more common by reason of there being less and less cultural restraint on their behaviour...

The only problem is that you can't always judge a book by its cover. A well bred English gentlemen still may have smashed her and then what, there your goes your argument.

Yeah but the odds would be very different. (In the US according to the Department of Justice blacks commit violent crimes at 7-8x the rate that white men do, and even more so compared to East Asians.) More importantly, she'd be MUCH better able to judge that well bed English gentleman's book by his cover, or a chapter into it anyway.

This is due heavily to differences in familiarity with the relevant cues that men in different subcultures give off. She wasn't able to pick up on his being dangerously off rather than just thrillingly different and unfamiliar.

It's also though PC and multiculty propaganda that goes far beyond enjoining whites on threat of racism damnation, to not think of all black men as dangerous thugs who might seriously hurt them, but to in fact make them think it would be racist and utterly verboten to intuit that any they might actually be dealing with in person might be. Far too rare and remote a phenomenon. Those thoughts are chased out of many white minds, through a taught and learned obliviousness or naivete.

Since whites are uniquely subject to the charge of racism at the drop of a hat by their peers including for realistic observation and thinking in Anglosphere PC culture, they're uniquely subject to this learned obliviousness and denial. aka George Orwell's doublethink.

Think of it this way. An English black girl of the same education and general social class as this white English TV presenter would be FAR more likely to sense that this guy was off and possibly dangerous. She'd probably feel far less attracted, since the semi taboo (but supposedly progressive) thing wouldn't be there. The English black girl wouldn't feel forbidden from having such negative intuitions without proof about this particular thuggish looking/acting black guy, or suppress them. She'd actively look for clues both positive AND negative. Without self censoring the negative ones.

I'm saying the propaganda's gone too far and the fear of being subject to someone's claims of racism has gone too far. No doubt she did date this guy out of a sense of real attraction and thrill. She also probably suppressed contrary feelings due to the messages that have washed over her.

"The English black girl wouldn't feel forbidden from having such negative intuitions without proof about this particular thuggish looking/acting black guy, or suppress them. She'd actively look for clues both positive AND negative. Without self censoring the negative ones."

You're probably right. Just going back to the initial attraction if you watch tv you'll know that (sorry for the cartoon reference) Marge Simpson and Lois Griffin (middle and upper middle class girls) both fall for lower middle class guys largely on the basis of their "physicality".

I know of several secondhand experiences of white women here in the US who have been approached by black men with blatantly racial overtones, and have also been accused of racism when they rebuffed black advances.

Firsthand, I have had one encounter where a black woman's first words to me were "So, do you only date white girls?" The woman was obese and ugly, but seemed to think that she could intimidate me into some kind of sortie. I can only imagine how a less reactionary man, let alone a liberal woman, would have reacted to this kind of psychological warfare.

I know of several secondhand experiences of white women here in the US who have been approached by black men with blatantly racial overtones, and have also been accused of racism when they rebuffed black advances.

It's increasingly getting so that those sorts of accusations aren't just brushed off but cause real distress.

Leading to more pressure to demo to the contrary. But only on white girls. Moral pressure that is.

Anonymous said: "Firsthand, I have had one encounter where a black woman's first words to me were "So, do you only date white girls?" The woman was obese and ugly, but seemed to think that she could intimidate me into some kind of sortie. I can only imagine how a less reactionary man, let alone a liberal woman, would have reacted to this kind of psychological warfare."

Here is a link to a recent furore over a white woman winning a "black" college's beauty pageant. Apparently, racism only goes one way.... Can you imagine if whites walked out because a black woman won a beauty pageant?!

I would suggest that part of the issue is not that this career girl and her peers are wholly driven by their personal whims.

You only need to have ever watched a single episode of 'Sex in the City' ( and one is ALL you ever need to watch to get the whole theme ) and then look around your own large city to realise that young women are incredibly conscious of how they are seen by their female peers.

Peer group status is incredibly important - I write with some knowledge, I have teenage daughters.

And I am sure Mark has written previously about aging career girls whose expectations for 'suitable' ( read convenient ) males in their lives turned to failed relationships, broken marriages and ashes in their mouths. The guys they selected tended to stop wanting to be fashion accessories and moved on.

What is the application in this case ?

My hypothesis is that Ms Piper wanted to be seen on the arm of this wannabe-gangsta because she would unassailably trump her female peers in pubs, clubs and restaurants. He scores all the boxes - as a fashion accessory. If walking around town with pit bulls was all the rage, she probably would have adopted one of them instead and wound up similarly ravaged.

Is it surprising that after all the torment she has suffered, when askeed to explain why she went with this sociopath - she reverts to "I fancied him" ? Cognitive dissonence I think is the term ?

The stated explanation at least implies some conscious thought on her part. One can hardly imagine her saying ( at least for many years yet to come ) "I let this guy latch on to me because my girlfriends would be approving if not outright jealous of me acquiring this piece of organic bling ! I was one up for the 15 minutes that I thought was the most important thing."

So for me, if you accept the substance of the above thesis, the irony is not that Ms Piper and so many others are so liberated that the bring this grief upon themselves.

The tragedy is that they are so hostage to the vapid opinion of others that they actively flirt with danger and disaster in their quest for status and approval. And I don't even think it is utter uncaring vanity - to me it is a sign of naked emotional insecurity.

"Is it surprising that after all the torment she has suffered, when askeed to explain why she went with this sociopath - she reverts to "I fancied him" ? Cognitive dissonence I think is the term ?"

No. She doesn't hold contradictory thoughts in her little mind at the same time. She's being quite consistent in her liberalism. It's really quite commendable actually: the way she get's done over and yet retains the very cognitive system that lead to her to her trauma. I suppose, in a perverted way, she is the direct equivalent in secular terms to a Catholic Saint. BBQ'd for a belief but refusing to recant even as the flames lap at his flesh.

"liberalism has targeted women and minorities as its focus of liberation so it's quite proper to focus on them when questioning liberalism's effects on society."

There is another type of "modern" women so to speak who wouldn't go out with this kind of guy. They're generally attracted to "nice" guys, are very humanitarian in their outlook and are often commited to social causes, not merely as lip service. You might see them at amnesty international meetings or the red cross. They're often very interested in the helping professions. Would anyone like to comment on them? (They're usually left by the way).

Yes, they're the type of liberal who are all for multiculturalism but wouldn't want a raghead as a neighbour. Unlike Katie Piper, they are disingenuous. Piper at least followed her liberalism to the end (well, almost the end; she's still alive at least).

Jesse_7 said: "There is another type of "modern" women so to speak who wouldn't go out with this kind of guy. They're generally attracted to "nice" guys, are very humanitarian in their outlook and are often commited to social causes, not merely as lip service. ... Would anyone like to comment on them?"

Okay, I'll take the bait. I have quite a few friends in this category, and perhaps I was once in this category myself. These women may not choose quite so badly but let's be clear that their choices likewise rarely turn out well. The 'nice' guys they select certainly don't fall into the criminal category and they're usually genial and fairly inoffensive. However, they also tend to be moral wimps, lacking in career ambition, commitment-phobic, and failures in terms of stability and security (which are super-important for women wanting a husband). They often cheat on their girlfriends as they're vulnerable to female scheming, and they tend to know more about the theory of life than actually living it. They are the men you will find most lacking in common sense, the ones who create their identities according to "what women want" rather than what they are, the ones who claim to be "in touch" with their emotions but who are in actual fact spineless and mercenary. They are chameleons who change their colour according to the bidding of women, society, etc.. They are passionate about causes and issues but lack passion for life itself.

Is there, I wonder, a certain correlation between the cleverness and verbal smarts of a woman and her susceptibility to being abused by trailer trash?

Somewhere or other P. D. James wrote that intelligent educated women seem to make a mess of their private lives in a way that stupid little trollops don't.

I know a lady (white) who is as physically attractive as the pre-maiming Katie Piper was. She is as sharp as a tack, with brilliant verbal skills, a well paid job, and an admirable dress sense. I am sure she could make any man happy. But every boyfriend she has ever had had either abused her physically or abused her psychologically (e.g. she gives him, crazily, her bank account details; he promptly filches all her money and escapes overseas).

Then she found a very gracious intelligent non-thuggish boyfriend who treated her admirably. You can guess what happened. She almost immediately wanted to end the relationship because he "gave me too many compliments". Well, we can't have that now, can we.

I don't know what occurred afterward. But my guess is, she has now given non-thuggish boyfriend the flick, and is back with some trog. Possibly even one of her previous trogs.

From something Steve Sailer wrote awhile back (sorry, no URL - you'll have to search to find the original):

There are different forms of masculinity, and one of the more important jobs of a society is to encourage young women to recognize the merits of the less macho, more socially constructive kinds of masculinity. Without this training, young women tend to revert to favoring the lowest common denominator form of masculinity: large, strong, courageous, and violent. This lack of training, combined with the constant feminist indoctrination, contributes to white women being more confused, unrealistic and self-defeating than Asian women [sic] in their thinking about what they want in a man.

Not commented on here, is that Lynch lived with his mother. So, to land a fetching bit like Piper we not only need to be brooding and violent but we need a mommy who protects us from having to be productive members of society.

Jesse, you make a good point: "I think there is a difference between niceness and weakness and I know that these guys often hide all sorts of sins behind a facade or token commitment to political and moral values."

There certainly is a difference, and I'm not condemning "nice". It's sometimes hard to tell the difference at first glance, though.

You also said: "I find the guys a bit "soft" (though not always) but are the girls that bad? They're often quite feminine and decent. Are all left wing guys generally no good?"

The girls aren't so much bad as unwilling to do what's good for them. They're blinded by prejudices (which they've inherited from feminism and liberalism), so that when they moan about how they can't find a guy who's nice on the inside and you give them some tips they reject the advice. For example, you say that there are more moral men to be found in church... but they refuse to be involved in organised religion as it's "brainwashing". You say that some rather nice strong manly types are found in the army reserve, SES, etc., but they say they're "warmongers" or "too crude". These women aren't bad; they're just stubbornly holding onto things that are less important than their own happiness. I suppose they're doing a warped version of the sacrificing devoted woman.

As for left wing guys, they're not all bad; some are rather nice in fact. But if you're after a man with cast-iron moral fibre and the sort of backbone that got us through WWII, then they're few and far between. Lefties nowadays simply aren't as admirable as they used to be. Seventy years ago, a good leftie was willing to die in the International Brigades fighting fascism in Spain. Now, the best they can come up with is tying themselves to trees or promoting "peace" in some place that needs justice before peace is even thinkable. (Here, I am thinking of some dear friends who, against my advice and that of a British major, insisted on risking their lives and those of many UN soldiers by going on a peace march into the middle of Bosnia in 1993.) Sure, these men aren't bad, but they're not exactly the sort of men who inspire a woman to want to submit to them! A woman needs to be able to look up to her husband. Sure, she can be better than him at certain things, even many things, but in the area of common sense decision-making and morality, he needs to be at least her equal in judgement and discernment. How else can she trust him with her welfare as well as that of their children?!

James said: "But my guess is, she has now given non-thuggish boyfriend the flick, and is back with some trog. Possibly even one of her previous trogs."

Ah, yes, the battered wife syndrome! It may be warped, but I think some women in their need to be "mastered" have resorted to the substitute of raw violent strength/power instead of the benevolent authority that so many men lack nowadays. If there is a lack of authority, there is a good chance it will be replaced by physical or psychological coercion, whether in a relationship or in society as a whole.

It's a strange feeling. I feel sorry for her. Nobody, let alone a female, deserves to be treated like that. Women are image conscious as it is, this is probably much more horrific to her than it might be to a dude. But at the same time, well... dang... you chase after a violent ape... what did you expect? I'm sure there were heaps of gentlemen-types that got the flick from her in the past too. This is where my feelings of being sorry for her get polluted with a certain self-righteous 'sucked in' type feeling. It's uncomfortable, I don't like it, but I can't help feeling it either...

Do we do this by holding women down? If a guy always has to be better than his wife/girlfriend, I think that would be desirable but in practise it could be difficult. I'm not arguing for mediocrity but the list of things that guys would have to do well would get pretty long.

I think a problem for guys today is that they're always pretty close to the wind. Something goes wrong and they (politely or otherwise) get shown the door. I'm not saying women aren't roughly in a similar position.

I agree a lot of people today are fairly ineffectual. I'm not sure what the answer to that is.

What I like about the "nice" left is that they're not overtly competitive. They have a bit more sympathy to human fallibility and weakness.

Certainly not! Women have sunk low enough as it is. Instead of this downward spiral of both women and men becoming less moral, and so forth, we need to foster improvement in both the sexes. The correlation of what we have discussed in this and many other posts here on OzCon is that men need to change too. Just because feminism is largely to blame doesn't mean that men aren't responsible for promoting feminism too.

P.S. I don't think that "the list of things that guys would have to do well would get pretty long". It's not about who's better at various things - goodness, one would expect a woman to be a better cook and seamstress, for example. It's more about having confidence and trust... feeling that the husband provides security and stability. It isn't much to ask that a woman be able to admire her husband in a few areas, but sadly this is singularly lacking in many modern relationships where the wife is selecting a mate using criteria that used to be considered female traits, such as usefulness around the house or physical attractiveness. Women used to have very sensible expectations, but now the checklist is so long that I can see why some men can't be bothered even trying.

I'm not sure what the best answers are. As a young bloke I'm trying to do the best I can to attract women whilst not feeling compromised or acting like a bastard. Happy relations with women is something I'm working towards.

This blog is just dripping with misogny and a spot of racist undertone too (how dare an attractive white woman find an average looking black man attractive) and I'm not sure why I am bothering but...Every person who is reading this (including me) is looking at his picture in the knowledge of the absolutely disgusting crimes he's committed - she wasn't. As to why she found him attractive - who knows, I think he munts but I am mature enough to understand that people (thankfully) have different tastes. Are any of you? A lot of you seem arrogant enough to think you know exactly why she fancied him.Some of the posts on here smack of blaming her for what happened. She was naive - being initially flattered rather than scared by the obsessive/stalky nature of his attention to her might be a sign of that - but she'd spotted the danger signs and was trying to end the relationship/fling/whatever it was.And finally as a few people have tried to point out: domestic violence and attempted murder are not the exclusive preserve of black working class men. In England this week a middle class white man was found guilty of killing his wife and another is on trial for the same at the moment. Neither man came with a handy "I am going to turn into a psychopath" label attached.

"And finally as a few people have tried to point out: domestic violence and attempted murder are not the exclusive preserve of black working class men."

This sentence spotlights a key difference in thinking between Liberals and others. I've encountered this dozens if not hundreds of time.

To a Liberal, IF SOMETHING ISN'T ALWAYS true, then you "can't" (that is it is wrong to) act as if it is true.

This seems so bizarre to non-Liberals that they never seem to notice that it is a difference in values being espoused -- not a matter of fact being not recognized. They typically respond "we're not saying that ALL of x are y, just that significantly more of x are y than z are y, as if that settles something. It never occurs to them that Liberals know that but it doesn't matter to them. It's a moral issue with them and a practical issue with non-Liberals.

Perhaps anonymous would feel more comfortable with the way the liberal media often reports on these crimes: as random, unpredictable attacks both parties were tragically fated to be caught up in.

Anonymous has disregarded the main argument in my post. I argued that the qualities women look for in men will change according to whether the culture of relationships is influenced more strongly by marriage, by romantic love or by sex alone.

The question then becomes whether my argument is logically coherent and whether it fits our own experience and the social trends we can observe in society.

If it does, then it might be accepted, at least provisionally, as a way of understanding an aspect of what happens in society.

"This blog is just dripping with misogny and a spot of racist undertone ... Every person who is reading this (including me) is looking at his picture in the knowledge of the absolutely disgusting crimes he's committed - she wasn't."

Anonymous,Suppose she had taken one look at the photo and said: "This guy is bad news! There's no way I'll go out with him!" Wouldn't such a response be inherently racist and therefore wrong?

As you yourself admit, the only 'right' response was the one she made. Racism is always wicked and evil -- even for something as personal and intimate as going out with someone.

This kind of reasoning is the end result of treating anti-racism as an absolute good. It would be more sane to treat anti-racism as a relative good, as something that should influence policy on fair housing and employment but not immigration -- and certainly not dating and marriage.

"As to why she found him attractive - who knows, I think he munts but I am mature enough to understand that people (thankfully) have different tastes. Are any of you? A lot of you seem arrogant enough to think you know exactly why she fancied him."

I think the question why someone like Katie, who would be considered a highly eligible career women, would go out with someone, who lets face it really looks like a thug, is a legitimate question. If we say, everyone do whatever you like (pure liberalism) then maybe people will do things they regret, in this case an awful lot. If we say choice is wonderful go nuts, again people will maybe chose things they regret. Should friends or family have said "we don't think he's the right kind of guy you should see" that would be restrictive but maybe very good in this or other instances.

Thugs are increasingly glamorised in our society. That too is a legitimate question.

I'm sure if you look on feminist blogs Katie will be receiving great sympathy from the women's movement. Violence against women is a legitimate political topic and it cuts across both the left and the right.

"Old hat I'm sure you get told this very often but you express yourself beautifully in posts."

Thank-you, Jesse, but I don't get told this very often. Men are so scared of women taking offence at compliments - if it's not misogynist, it's patronising, or both! - that in general men have become somewhat ungracious and even boorish!

As for a woman paying me such a compliment, the last time I ventured onto another (not very conservative) site, I was told I couldn't be a woman and that I was really a man masquerading as a woman. And the views I was expressing there were pretty tame compared to what I've said here....

Just to throw my own compliment in :-) ... I just wanted to say I admire the way Mark Richardson's responses to hostile or critical correspondents is so measured and reasoned. I too often just get mad... which is wrong and takes away credibility from my argument. Mark, you have a rare quality: control in the face of liberal excess.

Jesse wrote, "I'm not sure what the best answers are. As a young bloke I'm trying to do the best I can to attract women whilst not feeling compromised or acting like a bastard. Happy relations with women is something I'm working towards."

I wondered. A lot of what you write has sounded familiar, and now I understand it's because you and I are asking many of the same questions. Good luck.

Mr Richardson's even-handedness in the face of some pretty dopey provocations ("This blog is just dripping with misogny" - love the spelling of that last word, huh?) is commendable. So are the fluency and, indeed, elegance of his writing style.

Mr. Richardson, you set a great example in your tone and conduct for the rest of us to follow, and generally, I've observed, we do. Although your opponents are rude, unpleasant and irrational, the contrast between their behavior and yours makes you come off all the better.

I am getting a kick out of the fact that Oz Conservative thinks women are inherently gullible idiots, while apparently placing great stock in the long discredited practice of nephrology (i.e. judging someone's character by his or her facial features).

You might want to consider that acid attacks on women are most common in places like the Middle East and southeast Asia, which are not exactly bastions of feminism. In fact, a common motive for acid attacks is revenge for a woman's refusal of sexual advances. (Look up Acid Attacks in Wikipedia for more info.) I am pretty sure that restricting women's freedoms will not result in less violence against women in the west. It will just increase the practical difficulty of escaping violent men.

I am intrigued by the argument that feminism teaches women to be too trusting of men. Usually, anti-feminists criticize feminism by arguing that it teaches women that men are bad. So which is it?

I second a prior commenter's recommendation of Gavin de Becker's book "The Gift of Fear." I am surprised to see his work recommended on an anti-feminist site since he constantly encourages women to trust their instincts. (To Jesse 7, he argues against cut-and-dried rules like "Don't knee a guy in the groin, it'll just makes things worse." Every situation is different. Your instincts at the time are the best guide as to how to respond to an attack.)

P.S. In response to a couple of commenters, the worst part of the attack was not that Ms. Piper was so pretty. The worst part was that she was subjected to an incredibly painful and terrifying ordeal that permanently disfigured her and left her in need of extensive medical intervention. This would have been just as awful if she were an ugly hag.

a) Katie Piper said that Daniel Lynch looked handsome. This was remarkable to me as he looks the opposite of handsome. He looks like a thug. So she was attracted to someone who looks like a thug. And, it turns out, is a thug.

This is not the same as me accepting some sort of science connecting character to facial features. Appearance and expression do, however, sometimes give clues about who is a person is.

b) Yes, feminists repeatedly tell women that men are abusers, rapists etc. However, they tell women that all men fall into this category. The average well-meaning white male, with a job and no drug or mental health issues, is considered to be just as much a hazard as any other man, perhaps more so, as feminists connect violence against women to the political efforts of a patriarchy - a group of dominant men - to hold down women.

In effect the message young women get from feminists is:

a) men in a general sense are abusers and rapists

b) women are liberated when they can pursue casual sex on their own terms without negative consequences

c) if there are negative consequences it is due to a failure of political liberation

Add to this the general message we get from liberalism:

d) we must be open and non-judgemental toward the other

Add to this the point I made in this post:

e) women who select for sex alone are less likely to opt for intelligence or emotional stability and more likely to select for raw displays of high testosterone including a propensity to violence

The overall result is one in which women are less likely to act prudently for their own safety or even to acknowledge the role that prudence might play in their dealings with the opposite sex.

The picture you posted doesn't particularly prove your point. I see a well-groomed man with a mild expression on his face and neutral clothing. There is nothing about him that says "thug." I could perhaps see where you are coming from if he were sporting gang insignia or some other clothing indicating membership in a violent subculture. The very blandness of the photo you have chosen is probably why some commenters have accused you of judging this man as having a violent appearance based on his race (and why I have concluded you are coming to this conclusion based on the mere shape of his features).

In fact, the best predictor of future behavior is not appearance or social class* but past behavior. If one thing was drummed into me at my feminist-friendly university in the early '90s, it was to immediately cease all contact with a man who has hit you. I truly wish that Katie Piper had heard and internalized that piece of advice.

*It is true that an upper class gentlemen is unlikely to throw acid on a woman in a public street. However, upper class gentlemen have certainly been known to terrorize their wives and children behind closed doors, my own Harvard-educated, stable, high income earning father and grandfather being examples of that phenomenon.

The crux of your question is how a feminist squares her recognition that men can pose a danger with her belief that she should be free to have casual relationships with men.

The answer is that the presence of risk is not an argument against freedom. For example, no one ever argues that men shouldn't go to bars or walk around alone in public -- despite the fact that men are far more likely than women to suffer violent attacks in bars and other public places. We don't wring our hands bemoaning men's freedom because, as a society, we fully accept that men have the right to make their own choices -- even though men certainly make their fair share of foolish choices (provoking bar fights, joining gangs, walking into dangerous areas where they are likely to be mugged, etc).

I see no logical reason to apply a different standard to women. When a man gets mugged on the street or assaulted in a bar for mouthing off, we prosecute the assailant. We don't argue that men need guidance from authority figures because they are gullible and foolish.*

*Not that everyone who is attacked is gullible and foolish. Maybe the man who walks down a deserted street at night has simply decided that he would prefer to take some risk than cower at home. The woman who decides to go on dates with men has decided some risk is acceptable compared to, say, joining a nunnery or letting Daddy make all the decisions about her sex life (even assuming Daddy's involvement would lower the risk). As noted above, an individual's determination of acceptable risk is highly idiosyncratic. It is not Daddy's deicion to make.

Margaret, my son will be getting plenty of advice from me about how to avoid being bashed in pubs and bars.

It will include not getting drunk in such places; being with a sufficient number of reliable friends; understanding the "honour" culture of some minority groups; being aware of the reality of sexual jealousy and sexual competition; being aware that not everyone will be well-disposed toward him and so on.

Yes, he will then choose for himself how to behave - but hopefully not in ignorance or naivety.

There is no freedom in being rendered vulnerable to attack through one's own lack of knowledge or prudence.

The photo shows a powerfully built man, with a somewhat sullen, dead-eyed look, unanimated by intelligence or social engagement. Someone you would at least take with caution at first.

I have to say, though, that my thug comment wasn't really the key point I was making. I was interested that Katie Piper, a very beautiful woman herself, would find him handsome. She mentioned in the article that she liked the fact that he did martial arts and that he was macho looking.

It seems to me that she is selecting on the basis of raw sexual markers of testosterone, rather than on the basis of good looks that she might like to pass on to future children, or emotional stability or intelligence or other such qualities.

I really doubt that too many such beautiful women, raised in a former culture more oriented to marriage and love, would have selected on such a crudely sexual basis.

(Think of it the other way around. Imagine a man who chooses a woman on the basis of her cup size and calls her beautiful, regardless of the evidence that she is self-seeking, disloyal and self-destructive and has a history of burning through previous boyfriends. The large cup size might push the buttons of the man sexually, but how adequate is this as a basis of partner selection? Should we take him at his word when he describes the woman as beautiful? Can we not recognise the flaws in his expectations when he too is cheated on and burnt through?)

We will have to agree to disagree on the photo. (For the record, Mr. Lynch does appear to be a handsome man. And no, I would not mind having a child who looks like him. And no, I have never in my life "selected" a violent man to date or marry.)

But yes, I agree that getting mixed up with people solely based on looks is a risk.

Giving your son advice on staying safe is great. But the emphasis is quite different with young men. We don't constantly talk about the need for a young man to have parental guidance in his choice of a recreational establishment or his choice of a woman to date or marry. We don't presume that young men are gullible idiots with inherent "weaknesses" (your word) in their decision-making ability.

Danny Lynch and his hitman should have faced the death penaltyDoes one really need to speculate the girl was attacked she was 25 25 is very young in terms of picking men etc She was in no way to blame i do not like the undertones of this blog It sounds like an abused child being abused by an abuser being told it was her faultI DONT THINK SODANNY LYNCH BURN IN HELL

Follow up to this case:Lisa Harris, 28, sneaked kisses, cuddles and steamy text messages with Daniel Lynch, 33, at Pentonville Prison while he was awaiting trial for raping 25-year-old Katie Piper.

My take?If Katie Piper recounts her situation with criticism, it would both undermine her inflated opinion of herself and would destroy her chances of future gainful employment. Besides that, is the idea that "women like the bad boys, because it gives them license to do bad things, and then pin it on the evil, evil man who led them astray".

It was dangerous of Katie, as a celebrity, to meet up with a fan who contacted her on Facebook. That was one mistake. He was also "rough trade," which clearly appealed to her, but which carried risks. We all make mistakes, and young women are making them every day. But rarely are the consequences so severe.

I've been following Katie Piper's story intently for the last couple of years. When I first watched the documentary it hit me SO strongly and so deeply that I had nightmares for weeks about it and became severely paranoid of anyone I was around. I even cried as I was watching it and I am someone who never cries in movies...let alone doco's!

I guess the reason it affected me so deeply as I fit somewhat into Katie's category being a young, slim attractive, blonde haired blue eyed 20-something female. I live in New Zealand but I had recently visited London - and walked down the same street Katie walked down (when she got attacked) in Golders Green by myself in broad daylight - as it is just one stop away from my aunties house. It really shocked me to the core that I could be walking down the same street she got attacked on as a young blonde woman... and it made me very self aware of how vulnerable women can be at times without even realising it.

I don't believe that it is fair to place any blame on Katie for her choices that lead to this tragedy. She was a victim in every sense of the word. Some people make much more foolish choices and they escape any harm - this can come down to luck or anything.

Katie may have chosen men based on her feelings of attraction alone - and that is fairly common for young men or women alike. Attraction is not always something we think about, it is there or it is not there. I have been attracted to both men who are GOOD for me and men who are BAD for me - and from my previous relationships - sometimes I've dated a man that I felt was very GOOD for me in the fact that he was kind, caring, supportive, safe, intelligent, from a good family etc - and yet he ended up hurting me emotionally more than when I have made slightly more "dangerous" choices going for a guy who might not be quite as suitable.

So just because a girl might prefer to go for a "bad boy" type - doesn't always mean that she is going to get attacked...and nobody ever expects a brutal attack to this extreme to occur. I mean these are circumstances outside the everyday norm... this is a man taking things way too far.

Although yes it may be more common for black or coloured men to commit these types of crimes - I don't believe it is anything we can put down to skin colour.

I think there have been quite a few prejudices and stereotypical comments made in this post.

As a young single white upper middle class female I have to say I strongly resent a lot of you making comments that women in my "category" or whatever you call it make bad choices when it comes to men. Not all young attractive white females want a bad boy.

I do want a man I find physically attractive. Personally I don't find black men attractive but I would never consider myself a rascist as I do have friends of all different colours and do not judge them for this.

However I would not date a black man simply because I do not find them attractive in a romantic sense but with that said I don't think that women who find black men attractive should NOT date them...that is obsurd. I think you can't always help who you fall in love with or who you are attracted to.

It is wise to think with our head somewhat when making decisions about dating but too often our heart decides for us or whatever we find exciting or whatever ignites that spark within us.

Katie had only been dating Lynch for TWO weeks when he attacked her. That is hardly a relationship- that is like a trial period where you are just getting to know someone.

The area where I believe she may have made mistakes is that I get the impression she had previously slept with lynch prior to his attack on her. She was very openly confident about her sexuality and this can be seen by her breast implants and topless modelling she did prior to meeting Lynch. She was not afraid to flaunt this side to herself.

I see now that after the attack she has become a stronger Christian and is now going to church and I imagine her dress sense is becoming more conservative so as to avoid ever attracting the wrong type of attention again.

I don't think anyone should be judged for topless modelling or flaunting their sex appeal if that is what they want to do - but they SHOULD be aware that it may attract unwanted attention and it could lead to disasterous consequences IF the person is not protecting themselves from outside stalkers etc...

Attractive women get 1000x more attention than unattractive women and so they have to be about 1000x more street smart just to survive without getting obsessed stalkers hanging off them or wanting to "own or control" them.

Katie may have made a bad decision choosing to date Lynch - but she could have equally decided to date another black man who had a kind heart.

I think yes Lynch did completely fit the black gangster thug stereotype that we love to pin someone on - just as much as we love to pin her as being the naive blonde ditz who was self absorbed and couldn't make a decision for herself.

Some people want to say she deserved what happened but she didn't deserve it at all. We see someones true character when they go through hardships and we see underneath what previously might have seemed like a very fake and superficial Katie - she really was a very kind hearted and sweet person underneath. It's not that Katie has now become more modest and nice - she was always that lovely good person except she might have been far more easily influenced by her peers or the media or the attention and hype that surrounded her and her looks prior to the attack.

She was used to getting a lot of attention from men - so its not unusual that she would choose an unsuitable mate. However now I imagine her taste in men would have changed drastically with her probably only looking for a man who makes her feel protected and safe and it may be very hard for her to trust again for a very long time.

I think that NOBODY in the world deserves what happened to her and she has a HUGE amount of love respect and admiration from millions of people around the world for surviving her ordeal with so much grace and beauty and strength. Hers is a charity that I have no trouble giving to - and strongly supporting as I see her as being a pillar of strength through something that most people would crumble if they ever had to experience.

She deserves nothing but love and admiration.

Lynch is a sick man who needs a lot of help - and his biggest punishment will not be this jail sentence but will be the severe guilt he will have to live with for the rest of his life. I think I would rather live with Katie's scars than live with a heart as black Lynch's for the rest of my life.

She is a beacon of light and a fantastic example to others and I wish her so much happiness.

Please don't judge her for her choices or mistakes. We all make them - some consequences are simply more deadly than others.

Society, overall, simultaneously praises and punishes women for simply being beautiful- without an after-thought to the mixed messages that women, as individuals, are bombarded with. It is all very subtle and besides the point.

As a young woman, I feel offended by the notion that Katie Piper "got what she deserved" (to put in layman's terms the focus of this post).

It's unfair to blame Ms. Piper for meeting Mr. Lynch. No woman should have to _expect_ to be raped, hurt, or disfigured, by anyone, under any circumstances.

In quoting from another unabashedly offensive short essay: "Women have basic weaknesses built into their nature." Why do both the (male) writers of these essays blame women (in general, not only Piper) for uninitiated, unfathomably cruel acts (that could potentially be) committed against them?

Dear writers and readers, do you really think that it ought to be the job of men to put "supposedly liberal" women "in their place" by raping and mutilating them? Does anyone deserve to be raped and/or mutilated?

Anon, it's not an issue of blame for me but an attempt to understand modern relationship dynamics.

I'm increasingly coming to believe that there are white Western women who still want ultimately to settle down with a white man and have children in a nice suburb - but not until their 30s.

Before then it's part of the script - ie it's thought fashionable - to have casual relationships with black men.

It's a dangerous script to follow, because as Lawrence Auster has evidenced time and again at View from the Right, some black men are following a different, contradictory script - one in which they are not cast as a fashionably short term relationship but as the real thing. So when the relationship is put an end to, jealousy and possessiveness and a desire for retribution can take over.

To think about whether this is a factor in modern relationships doesn't mean blaming women for shocking acts of violence directed toward them. It's an attempt to understand what's going on and how some women might be making themselves vulnerable.